Bwahaha, finally people are starting to argue on my side.
Though it's all by mistake. Many of you don't understand the argument, because you're looking at it from a closed-minded view. Which I am too, but in a different way - I am assuming that I am right and giving my reasons for it. Until someone gives me a reason other than "you're reading it wrong", which I'm not, I'm going to continue to assume that I am right.
I checked. NO where in the PHB does it say an "attack" requires an attack roll. "Attack" is never clearly defined, so I'm defining as "an attack". Anything that is an Attack Power, basically - including Basic Attacks (grab and the like are still Attack Powers, but everyone knows them - matter of fact, in my opinion they should have given a section on powers that everyone has, including basic melee, basic ranged, grab, and second wind... but they didn't).
I have no reason to repent. Galileo didn't, and no one believed him at first, did they?
By the way, I'm having the slight problem that I recently stopped seeing this as a rules question. It's become a logic problem, too many of you who are trying to convince me that I'm wrong because either I'm the only one on my side, or because I'm "not reading it right".
